Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

prometheus.med.utah.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 68 posts

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#21

Post by dialtone »

borisk wrote: post #19
dialtone wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Samsung still has not enough capacity to supply its own lines and client lines with their Super AMOLED display. When looking in the future instead, in July 2011 they are supposedly opening a new 5.5 gen plant for AMOLED technology that will allow them an output of 30M 3" displays per month. http://www.oled-display.net/new-55-gen-oled-line-from-samsun... Apple couldn't use SuperAMOLED because of supply issues more tha…

Yeap, so they had to use the inferior IPS.

It is still slightly better for viewing text and browsing.

According to digitimes (paywall) http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20100526VL200.html

According to our sources, Apple had spoken with Samsung Mobile Display about the possibility for AMOLED panels since the development of the iPhone 3GS, but production capacity remains a big issue. SMD only has the capability to fulfill 50-60% of iPhone orders at the moment even it dedicated all AMOLED capacity to Apple.

Of course, cost is always a concern. AMOLED panels cost US$34-38. TN panels cost less than US$10 and IPS panels around US$20.

AMOLED also has display weaknesses. SMD uses PenTile technology developed by Clairvoyante to produce AMOLED, which is less suitable for displaying text. With Apple quite keen on pushing e-reading businesses, AMOLED may not be the best solution at the moment.

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#22

Post by Groxx »

borisk wrote: post #15
yardie wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, that link was absolutely useless. No information, no comparisons, nothing. It read more like a hit piece for samsung

How about '180 degree viewing angle', 'Quadrupling the resolution on the screen would only increase the clarity at most only three to five percent' and 'the Retina Display is too power-hungry, which drains the battery up to 30% faster than you’d find on their Super AMOLED screens' https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=...

Yes, lets all take a competitor's word at face value. And that clarity quote is complete bull, just look at a 3G and a 4G side by side. I like AMOLED screens, but the article is worthless.

How would one calculate clarity? It seems it would be a subjective measurement... maybe they're looking at the phones from 10 feet away?

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#23

Post by macrael »

ugh wrote: post #7
macrael wrote: post #2

Are the pixels on the iPhone vertically oriented like pixels on desktop monitors usually are?

In portrait orientation they have the same orientation as pixels on desktop monitors, i.e. the subpixels of individual pixels are next to each other, not on top of each other. (I looked at my third generation iPod touch. Well, I took a macro photo with my trusty Ricoh GR Digital II [1]. The only tool I have with which I can make subpixels – barely – visible. Hm, water drops might work, too, but that seems a bit risky…

How does rotating the screen affect text antialiasing?

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#24

Post by macrael »

ugh wrote: post #7
macrael wrote: post #2

Are the pixels on the iPhone vertically oriented like pixels on desktop monitors usually are?

In portrait orientation they have the same orientation as pixels on desktop monitors, i.e. the subpixels of individual pixels are next to each other, not on top of each other. (I looked at my third generation iPod touch. Well, I took a macro photo with my trusty Ricoh GR Digital II [1]. The only tool I have with which I can make subpixels – barely – visible. Hm, water drops might work, too, but that seems a bit risky…

How does rotating the screen affect text antialiasing?

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#25

Post by ugh »

macrael wrote: post #23
ugh wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In portrait orientation they have the same orientation as pixels on desktop monitors, i.e. the subpixels of individual pixels are next to each other, not on top of each other. (I looked at my third generation iPod touch. Well, I took a macro photo with my trusty Ricoh GR Digital II [1]. The only tool I have with which I can make subpixels – barely – visible. Hm, water drops might work, too, but that seems a bit risky…

How does rotating the screen affect text antialiasing?

I just checked Safari, they don’t actually do any subpixel antialiasing. Just “normal” antialiasing. I would guess that if it’s not used in Safari it’s used nowhere, so no problems with that :)

(Subpixel antialiasing seems unnecessary with resolutions like that. Heck, even any other kind of antialiasing is beginning to become unnecessary with resolutions like that.)

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#26

Post by ugh »

Groxx wrote: post #20
ugh wrote: post #9

It seems to me that the black gaps are bigger. I just did a back of the envelope calculation, using the photos he posted and it looks as though black gaps take up about 30 percent of the space on the first and second iPhone while they take up about 40 percent on the new iPhone 4. I wonder what the effects of that are. It probably just makes the display a bit dimmer (if one were to use the same backlight).

Though I'm not discounting that it may in fact be dimmer: Larger gaps alone implies dimmer, but this can be accounted for by having the pixels put out more light. Having larger gaps on a display doesn't mean it's dimmer, as the pixels have likely changed characteristics in the process of shrinking them.

(It’s, by the way, not that the gaps got necessarily bigger, maybe a little, it’s just that they didn’t shrink either and, with more pixels, there are also more gaps.)

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#27

Post by amichail »

watmough wrote: post #4

Having queued for 7 hours yesterday to get my iPhone 4, I can confirm that the display actually exceeded my expectations. All natively rendered text in controls, etc., looks like it was printed in a magazine. This display is going to be huge news once it hits the iPad and MacBook Pros.

What is the resolution for touch sensitivity in the iPhone 4?

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#28

Post by masklinn »

watmough wrote: post #4

Having queued for 7 hours yesterday to get my iPhone 4, I can confirm that the display actually exceeded my expectations. All natively rendered text in controls, etc., looks like it was printed in a magazine. This display is going to be huge news once it hits the iPad and MacBook Pros.

> This display is going to be huge news once it hits the iPad and MacBook Pros.

Which is probably never. Those don't even reach the pixel density of the 2G/3G/3GS. 326ppi? That's already going to be pretty tall order on a 10" screen (the iPad currently stands at 132 ppi, assuming the form factor doesn't change we're talking about increasing the resolution by a factor of 2.5, pumping the resolution to an insane 2560x1920. We're talking about a resolution usually found on 30" computer screens here, and those things are still pretty much all between $1000 and $2000...).

The 13.3" macbook pro would have a 3712x2320 screen, the 15.4" would move up to 4200x2625 and the 17" would be sporting a 4000x3000 screen.

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#29

Post by gthank »

masklinn wrote: post #28
watmough wrote: post #4

Having queued for 7 hours yesterday to get my iPhone 4, I can confirm that the display actually exceeded my expectations. All natively rendered text in controls, etc., looks like it was printed in a magazine. This display is going to be huge news once it hits the iPad and MacBook Pros.

> This display is going to be huge news once it hits the iPad and MacBook Pros. Which is probably never. Those don't even reach the pixel density of the 2G/3G/3GS. 326ppi? That's already going to be pretty tall order on a 10" screen (the iPad currently stands at 132 ppi, assuming the form factor doesn't change we're talking about increasing the resolution by a factor of 2.5, pumping the resolution to an insane 2560x1…

I agree with you, but I'm still sad that I don't get a 300dpi screen.

Re: Apple Retina Display: Under the microscope comparisons with 1G and 3G

#30

Post by grinich »

masklinn wrote: post #28
watmough wrote: post #4

Having queued for 7 hours yesterday to get my iPhone 4, I can confirm that the display actually exceeded my expectations. All natively rendered text in controls, etc., looks like it was printed in a magazine. This display is going to be huge news once it hits the iPad and MacBook Pros.

> This display is going to be huge news once it hits the iPad and MacBook Pros. Which is probably never. Those don't even reach the pixel density of the 2G/3G/3GS. 326ppi? That's already going to be pretty tall order on a 10" screen (the iPad currently stands at 132 ppi, assuming the form factor doesn't change we're talking about increasing the resolution by a factor of 2.5, pumping the resolution to an insane 2560x1…

People not that long ago believed that heavier-than-air flight was impossible.

Never is a very long time. Is it really impossible that large high-DPI screens will exist in 5-10 years?

Post reply on HN